Listened a few minutes to Rod Arquette on 570AM last night. They were talking about how this issue affects the religious power over their own "definition of sin" being taken from their hands and put in the hands of politicians.

Used to be, in Roman times and other nations, "religion" was a tool of governance just like modern education is today. But under the concepts of the American Revolution, with the State being restricted from top-down public management, things could be different. . . .

The reason people set up "churches" could be all about the "Freedom of Assembly", the right of people to associate with others based on their own judgments, desires, and moral definitions. Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech and the declaration that Federal Government shall not have the power to set up a State-Sanctioned Religion should pretty well mean the Federal Government should not be in this mud bath, nor in the Education business. Neither should the State Governments be setting up social standards of the class that do not protect life, liberty, property, speech, individually-chosen relationships/contracts, organizations based on voluntary associations, etc etc etc etc.

Protecting children from incest, forced marriages to "authorities" of any kind. .. . from being propagandized by marxists and other social agenda pushers on the state dollar. . . . . yeah that's what a good government should do.

I might still think gays are mentally stunted and irresponsibly displacing long-term priorities with short-term decisions to avoid challenges to personal development which would lead to a better life. Anyone who wants to define themselves on a single issue is mentally stunting their own growth. But when I run for office, I say the government has no right to treat any people different, and would re-write the laws to make that happen. What you have to look for in legislation is protection of individuals and groups from harm or "management agendas" not of their own choosing. . . . and procedures of governance that don't impose hardships on any "class", or benefits on "influential" individuals or groups. . . . equal rights under the laws.

And "progressives" who are buying the current global propaganda fads which are being exploited to increase state power are pretty much being used, manipulated, and turned into mental midgets, too. Amazing how similar today's "progressives" are with the feudal liege class of peasant overlords in Medieval Europe. . . yup get out there in the Kings' forest and make sure nobody is cutting wood or taking game to feed themselves, y'all. Make sure nobody can earn enough to build their own castle. . . yeah. . . . make all the peasants live in mud huts with grass roofs and thresh floors infested with rats, and pay 50% of their harvest to the Lords. . . . yeah. . . . that's "social justice" all right. . . .

Gays who are all about making the government the vehicle for legislating morals and social standards for people are short-sighted. If we continue to accept government having that kind of power, all it takes is 51% of the voters to legislate any moral or social agenda. . . . . including "fixing" gays or "deviants" of any kind. . . . say "Mormons" included, in "re-education camps" staffed by ideological or religious zealots wearing jack-boots and holding "panel" meetings about who gets to live or die.

I have to admit, I was one who believed the LDS Church would be all onboard with just letting legislated laws determine their doctrines and acceptance criteria, and it is refreshing to me to see some LDS wanting to stand up and publicly discuss the impacts of progressive ideological fads on their morals, and their existence as an organization of believers in a particular family concept. . . . not so much refreshing to see them empowered to write the definition of "family" for the State.

It's as unconstitutional for a church to use the State as a vehicle for enforcement of a moral code as it would be for a particular group of sexual fadists to make the State enforce their codes on others. In deeds or speech.

Although I think you may have misinterpreted exactly what Stoked was trying to convey, you make a great point: sexual orientation is only as important to a friendly relationship as you make it. If you have no intention of having sex with someone, it really has no bearing on how well you can get along, IMO.

That being said;

You're probably the last guy that should be calling anyone a douchenozzle.

Exactly. Sexual orientation is a none factor to me, as are race and religion, on wether I have to accept someone. I will do that based on what kind of person you are.

Real life example. My younger sister was friends with this guy that I did not like. At all. He was foul mouthed just to be foul mouthed, rude to my sister, ungrateful and arrogant. He is also gay. Well we were all at lunch on day in a Wendys. Him, my sister, my friend and I. He was being his usual self and I called him out on it and really laid into him. Put him in his place hard. Well his retort was that I was homphobic and didn't like him because he was gay. At which point I turned to my friend and told him that since this douche has me all figured out that we couldn't be friends anymore since he was gay as well.

It never even crossed this guys mind that I didn't like him because he was an ass to my sister. No it automatically had to be because he was gay and I wanted to hold him down. That is my example of how I was using acceptance. It is being turned from equal rights, which they are entitled to and should have immediately, to blanket acceptance of everything that a gay man or woman says or does.

Ah that good ole days before the hypocrisy and political correctness took hold.

back when you could call some one names and tease them and not end up on the 6:00 news in the school bully addition. look how strong and better it made all of us. our kids our all going to be politically correct pansies...

“Silence is golden, and gold is up these days, so silence is a solid investment.”
― Jarod Kintz

I might still think gays are mentally stunted and irresponsibly displacing long-term priorities with short-term decisions to avoid challenges to personal development which would lead to a better life. Anyone who wants to define themselves on a single issue is mentally stunting their own growth.

"Mentally stunted" may be a bit harsh, but I agree that there are negative side effects to defining yourself by one characteristic.

There are a few of comedians who are gay, who are probably really funny, but I don't like because ALL their material is about being gay. I don't have an issue with gay material generally, but when that's your only comic vehicle, the funny starts to run dry quickly. The same could be said about fat comics who only do fat material...etc.

But I digress... I don't want to like or dislike someone because they're gay, or in spite of it, I want to like someone because they're good in many different ways. They may or may not just happen to be gay, but that shouldn't be the linchpin in the relationship.

A lot of you seem to be hung up on the idea that you feel you HAVE TO like gay people. WHo the **** said anything about having to like anyone or anything in this conversation. This **** is telling. Gay marriage isn't forcing you to do anything. It allows members of society the same privileges and basic right as the rest of society. Thats it. It's not about you. It's about something you can never truely understand.

You're white dudes in 'Merica. Why do you feel so threatened by this stuff?

Listened a few minutes to Rod Arquette on 570AM last night. They were talking about how this issue affects the religious power over their own "definition of sin" being taken from their hands and put in the hands of politicians.

Used to be, in Roman times and other nations, "religion" was a tool of governance just like modern education is today. But under the concepts of the American Revolution, with the State being restricted from top-down public management, things could be different. . . .

The reason people set up "churches" could be all about the "Freedom of Assembly", the right of people to associate with others based on their own judgments, desires, and moral definitions. Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech and the declaration that Federal Government shall not have the power to set up a State-Sanctioned Religion should pretty well mean the Federal Government should not be in this mud bath, nor in the Education business. Neither should the State Governments be setting up social standards of the class that do not protect life, liberty, property, speech, individually-chosen relationships/contracts, organizations based on voluntary associations, etc etc etc etc.

Protecting children from incest, forced marriages to "authorities" of any kind. .. . from being propagandized by marxists and other social agenda pushers on the state dollar. . . . . yeah that's what a good government should do.

I might still think gays are mentally stunted and irresponsibly displacing long-term priorities with short-term decisions to avoid challenges to personal development which would lead to a better life. Anyone who wants to define themselves on a single issue is mentally stunting their own growth. But when I run for office, I say the government has no right to treat any people different, and would re-write the laws to make that happen. What you have to look for in legislation is protection of individuals and groups from harm or "management agendas" not of their own choosing. . . . and procedures of governance that don't impose hardships on any "class", or benefits on "influential" individuals or groups. . . . equal rights under the laws.

And "progressives" who are buying the current global propaganda fads which are being exploited to increase state power are pretty much being used, manipulated, and turned into mental midgets, too. Amazing how similar today's "progressives" are with the feudal liege class of peasant overlords in Medieval Europe. . . yup get out there in the Kings' forest and make sure nobody is cutting wood or taking game to feed themselves, y'all. Make sure nobody can earn enough to build their own castle. . . yeah. . . . make all the peasants live in mud huts with grass roofs and thresh floors infested with rats, and pay 50% of their harvest to the Lords. . . . yeah. . . . that's "social justice" all right. . . .

Gays who are all about making the government the vehicle for legislating morals and social standards for people are short-sighted. If we continue to accept government having that kind of power, all it takes is 51% of the voters to legislate any moral or social agenda. . . . . including "fixing" gays or "deviants" of any kind. . . . say "Mormons" included, in "re-education camps" staffed by ideological or religious zealots wearing jack-boots and holding "panel" meetings about who gets to live or die.

I have to admit, I was one who believed the LDS Church would be all onboard with just letting legislated laws determine their doctrines and acceptance criteria, and it is refreshing to me to see some LDS wanting to stand up and publicly discuss the impacts of progressive ideological fads on their morals, and their existence as an organization of believers in a particular family concept. . . . not so much refreshing to see them empowered to write the definition of "family" for the State.

It's as unconstitutional for a church to use the State as a vehicle for enforcement of a moral code as it would be for a particular group of sexual fadists to make the State enforce their codes on others. In deeds or speech.

Homosexuality is as fadist as cell division. Where marriage is relatively new. I would call us married folks the sexual fadists.

I am for gay marriage. However I do nto have to accept someone because they are gay.

<strike>In this context, what does "acceptance" mean to you:?</strike>

OK, you answered that later. Based on you description of your sister's friend, I don't think anyone would argue you have to approve of his behavior or like him as an individual. However, that's an unusual description of "acceptance", and generally not the one intended by the activists I've read on the subject.

Any habitual action, such as eating or dressing, may be performed on the appropriate occasion, without any need of thought, and the same seems to be true of a painfully large proportion of our talk. -- Bertrand Russell

Any habitual action, such as eating or dressing, may be performed on the appropriate occasion, without any need of thought, and the same seems to be true of a painfully large proportion of our talk. -- Bertrand Russell

Although I think you may have misinterpreted exactly what Stoked was trying to convey, you make a great point: sexual orientation is only as important to a friendly relationship as you make it. If you have no intention of having sex with someone, it really has no bearing on how well you can get along, IMO.

That being said;

You're probably the last guy that should be calling anyone a douchenozzle.

who, specifically, did I call a douchenozzle?
Have I ever not accepted you?
Sorry you're so sensitive to my ways... I accept you anyway.

A lot of you seem to be hung up on the idea that you feel you HAVE TO like gay people. WHo the **** said anything about having to like anyone or anything in this conversation. This **** is telling. Gay marriage isn't forcing you to do anything. It allows members of society the same privileges and basic right as the rest of society. Thats it. It's not about you. It's about something you can never truely understand.

You're white dudes in 'Merica. Why do you feel so threatened by this stuff?

The experiences I have had in life such as the one I listed above. When I disagree with them or call them out and I am suddenly a homphobe or sexist for not kissing their ass. Have you not ben paying attention?

Your response is a prime example of not really listening to what is being said. Well done.